Saturday, June 11, 2011

Kuwaiti woman wants captured Westerners to be sold as concubines

Salwa al Mutairi

A Kuwaiti woman has called for sex slavery to be reintroduced into her country. Not only that, she believes the slaves should be non-Muslim women captured in war, such as Russian women captured in the conflict in Chechnya:

A Kuwaiti woman who once ran for parliament has called for sex slavery to be legalised - and suggested that non-Muslim prisoners from war-torn countries would make suitable concubines.

Salwa al Mutairi argued buying a sex-slave would protect decent, devout and 'virile' Kuwaiti men from adultery because buying an imported sex partner would be tantamount to marriage.

And she even had an idea of where to 'purchase' these sex-salves - browsing through female prisoners of war in other countries.

Mutairi claimed: 'There was no shame in it and it is not haram' (forbidden) under Islamic Sharia law.'

She suggested shopping for prisoners of war so as to protect Kuwaiti men from being tempted to commit adultery or being seduced by other women's beauty.

'For example, in the Chechnyan war, surely there are female Russian captives,' she said.

'So go and buy those and sell them here in Kuwait. Better than to have our men engage in forbidden sexual relations.'

In an attempt to consider the woman's feelings in the arrangement, Mutari conceded that the enslaved women, however, should be at least 15.

Mutairi said free women must be married with a contract but with concubines 'the man just buys her and that’s it. That’s enough to serve as marriage.'

Mutairi said that during a recent visit to Mecca, she asked Saudi muftis – Muslim religious scholars – what the Islamic ruling was on owning sex slaves. They are said to have told her that it is not haram [forbidden].

The ruling was confirmed by 'specialized people of the faith' in Kuwait, she claimed.

'They said, that’s right, the only solution for a decent man who has the means, who is overpowered by desire and who does not want to commit fornication, is to acquire jawari.' Jawari is the plural of the Arabic term jariya, meaning 'concubine' or 'sex slave'.

One Saudi mufti supposedly told Mutairi: 'The context must be that of a Muslim nation conquering a non-Muslim nation, so these jawari have to be prisoners of war.'

Concubines, she argued, would suit Muslim men who fear being 'seduced or tempted into immoral behaviour by the beauty of their female servants'.

Where would such an idea come from? From the history of the Muslim Middle-East. Russian and Ukrainian women were captured in raids and sold as concubines for a lengthy historic period of nearly 1000 years. It was called the harvest of the steppe. One of the roles of the Cossacks in Russian history was to defend the southern borders from such raids:

Until the beginning of the 18th century, Crimean Tatars were known for frequent devastating raids into Ukraine and Russia. For a long time, until the early 18th century, Crimean Khanate maintained a massive slave trade with the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East which was one of the fundaments of its economy. One of the most known and important trading ports and slave markets was Kefe. Some researchers estimate that altogether more than 3 million people, predominantly Ukrainians but also Russians, Belarusians and Poles, were captured and enslaved during the time of the Crimean Khanate in what was called "the harvest of the steppe". A constant threat from Crimean Tatars supported the appearance of cossackdom. The Cossacks often answered with similar raids into Crimea during which many Christian slaves were liberated.

Eventually the Russians became too powerful and won some decisive military victories and the raids ceased. But you can see where Salwa al Mutairi gets her idea of enslaving Russian women as concubines from - it was part of the history of the region for a very long time.

It's true that she is a minority voice within modern Kuwait, but I think it's worthwhile publicising her views. Left-liberals have picked out white Christian males as a dominant oppressor group in history and have therefore blamed us for the existence of inequality and injustice in the world. We are the ones, therefore, who are treated as illegitimate and who are targeted for deconstruction.

But look at the real history here. When the Russians were not dominant what happened? Was there peace and equality in Russia and in neighbouring lands? No, their lack of strength simply meant that they were exploited by others - they were raided by the Muslim nations to their south and their young women were carried off as booty. There was no virtue in being weak. When the Russians did finally dominate their southern neighbours they were able to put an end to an injustice inflicted on their own population.

So here are two important conclusions. First, it is wrong for left-liberals to assume that the white, Christian lands were always dominant. There have been long periods of history in which Europe was vulnerable to conquest by other peoples. Second, when European nations were weak it did not create equality and justice in the world; it meant that the Western populations were vulnerable to exploitation by others.

One final point. Salwa al Mutairi is not alone in calling for Muslims to profit from the invasion of non-Islamic countries. Some years ago an Egyptian Islamic cleric, Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini, said:

If only we can conduct a jihadist invasion at least once a year or if possible twice or three times, then many people on earth would become Muslims. And if anyone prevents our dawa or stands in our way, then we must kill them or take as hostage and confiscate their wealth, women and children. Such battles will fill the pockets of the Mujahid who can return home with 3 or 4 slaves, 3 or 4 women and 3 or 4 children. This can be a profitable business if you multiply each head by 300 or 400 dirham. This can be like financial shelter whereby a jihadist, in time of financial need, can always sell one of these heads [meaning slavery].

Huwaini recently clarified his earlier position:

According to Huwaini, after Muslims invade and conquer a non-Muslim nation—in the course of waging an offensive jihad—the properties and persons of those infidels who refuse to convert or pay jizya and live as subjugated dhimmis, are to be seized as ghanima or "spoils of war."

Huwaini cited the Koran as his authority—boasting that it has an entire chapter named "spoils"—and the sunna of Muhammad, specifically as recorded in the famous Sahih Muslim hadith wherein the prophet ordered the Muslim armies to offer non-Muslims three choices: conversion, subjugation, or death/enslavement.

Huwaini said that infidel captives, the "spoils of war," are to be distributed among the Muslim combatants (i.e., jihadists) and taken to "the slave market, where slave-girls and concubines are sold." He referred to these latter by their dehumanizing name in the Koran, ma malakat aymanukum—"what your right hands possess"—in this context, sex-slaves: "You go to the market and buy her, and she becomes like your legal mate—though without a contract, a guardian, or any of that stuff—and this is agreed upon by the ulema." [The ulema or ulama refers to "the educated class of Muslim legal scholars."]

"In other words," Huwaini concluded, "when I want a sex-slave, I go to the market and pick whichever female I desire and buy her."...

Left-liberals might like to bear in mind the existence of views like these when judging the historical record of the West.

Putting aside the fact that this woman is a subhuman who deserves a Predator missile in the face, what makes her think this idea would be even remotely pragmatic? It's obvious that Western powers would not exactly like this (invasions have occured for lesser reasons, as evidence by Libya), and I doubt Russia would take kindly to its citizen being bought by Kuwait into sex slavery. But since when have Muslims been capable of logical thinking or future time orientation?

This is a simple problem with a simple solution (prostitution), yet all she can think of is the most primal and barbaric one: let's kidnap and rape women!

Europeans allow Muslims to move there and rape their women even though everyone knows it is happening, so why should Europeans draw the line at Muslims taking European women back to Arabia and raping them there?

Liberals often respond that Islam is a disgusting non-liberal patriarchal religion deserving of scorn and the same as Christianity (its equal).

The liberal instinct is to claim something along the lines of "well the West is even worse, look at X".

In the discussion threads about Salwa al Mutairi I've read that the West is no better because the patriarchs of the Old Testament also had concubines; because of the way Muslim prisoners were treated at Abu Ghraib; and because the West has an equivalent to Salwa al Mutairi in Ann Coulter.

Part of our response should be to criticise this liberal reflex - Lawrence Auster does this well at VFR.

Part of the argument we need to make as well is to connect the patriarchal model of marriage based on a stable form of pair bonding with the achievement of a higher level of civilisation.

They can have all the American chicks they want. I can't think of a faster way to destroy their country than to send them all of our Feminanzi storm troppers that most men here want nothing to do with not even as a sex slave.

No, their lack of strength simply meant that they were exploited by others - they were raided by the Muslim nations to their south and their young women were carried off as booty. There was no virtue in being weak.

The success of weakness-over-strength (along with pacifism in general) depends entirely on the nature of the enemy. Ghandi was only successful because he was up against the British Empire, which, though despicable in many ways, was one of the more moral empires in human history. If he'd been born a Soviet subject, he'd be in a mass grave in Siberia and no one would remember his name.

Victimology in the West has been successful because the West has been made to feel guilty for existing. Absent this guilt, the victim is just that: a victim, and no more. Military history tells us that strength is always superior to weakness.

In 2006 I wrote about how the duplicitous nature of liberals allows them to wield power while simultaneously painting themselves as eternal victims. I call this Monolith Syndrome.

And this is the same Kuwait that the West rallied behind in the name of “Freedom” when Iraq invaded them. The fact that then as now, Kuwait is a hereditary Muslim dictatorship was conveniently ignored by the pro-war propaganda machine. The Kuwaiti dictatorship is part of the globalist economic elite so its the “good guy”.

If Muslims took American women as sex slaves, they'd die! They'd die because our women are filthy, disease ridden whores. What man wants to get warts on his willy, or warts in his tailpipe? None, and that includes Muslim men.

On second thought, LET them take our women as sex slaves. That would neutralize the Muslim men, which would neutralize their Jihad against, us, and so on. Plus, we get rid of our feminazi, man-hating bitches. How could we go wrong?!

"If Muslims took American women as sex slaves, they'd die! They'd die because our women are filthy, disease ridden whores. What man wants to get warts on his willy, or warts in his tailpipe? None, and that includes Muslim men."

Great attitude mate, why don't you go convert to Islam if you have so little respect for your own culture. Some of you guys are a joke. I'm guessing you've been passed over one too many times and now you're pissed. Obviously that's the women's fault hero.

Come on now, Mate! I'd expect that sort of shaming language from a woman, not a dude. You managed to combine Code Red and Code Purple shaming language in ONE SENTENCE-wow! Only chicks can do that, my friend. Sure you're not a woman masquerading as a guy?

On a more serious note, no I don't care for what my culture has become. I love what America STOOD for; I love her FOUNDING PRINCIPLES; never has there been a better nation in the history of the world.

However, the America of 2011, is NOT the America that was; it's not the America of our Founding Fathers. Oh sure, America as a GEOGRAPHIC & POLITICAL ENTITY still exists, but the America of our Founding Fathers does not; the America that was the proverbial shining city on a hill is long gone, Jesse! When you have our women aspiring to live the Sex and the City lifestyle, how can I have any affection for this debased, decadent, and debauched culture?

As for converting to Islam, give me a break; it's a false religion. That said, the Muslims have remembered what their Christian and Jewish counterparts have all but forgotten: women cannot be trusted with rights, because women are incapable of EXERCISING them. The Muslims know that, left to their own devices, women will destroy nations and cultures. It happened in ancient Rome, and it's happening again all across the Western World. Muslims all around the world are desperately trying to prevent what's happened here; they're trying to keep their women from turning into SATC sluts who think Paris Hilton is a paragon of womanhood and female virtue. Their methods are harsh, but they have the right idea. Ah, but we're more 'enlightened' than that, right? We know better now, don't we?

I'm surprised I didn’t get called for "whiteknighting" as you pulled the other classic staple to be used against criticism, "shaming language". I'm still trying to figure out how you can get warts "in the tailpiple" from a woman btw.

Look I understand why you'd be pissed at the dominant culture, but I'd still put it to you that there are plenty of nice girls out there. At uni here we have many nice American girls on exchange and they aren't buck wild. I just think you can overestimate certain behaviors. Also if the girls are giving it out the guys are pushing for it make no mistake. If the guys are going nuts why is it only the women's fault? Are guys just people who can't control themselves and so it has to be left all to the woman?

In Islam if a married man sleeps with a woman the woman can be charged with adultery. This includes if she was raped, there was a recent case on this with an Australia hotel worker in one of their countries. Is that really want we want, a system so utterly biased towards one sex? Islamic countries are also hardly beckons of competence or civilisational progress. They're just one degree higher than grass skirt wearers and far more self righteous.

You can get warts in the back side because they spread from the FRONT side, i.e. where you had sexual contact with a disease ridden skank.

As for good women, yes, they're out there. However, their numbers are small. To put it another way, their numbers are asymptotically close to zero; they're so rare that they might as well not exist. The few that do exist get snapped up early, and they stay off the market forever. A man has a better chance of hitting the lottery than he does of meeting a decent woman.

That's not true. I go to church with three nice American girls, that's not close to zero. I know other American girls who go out drinking but don't have sex, again not zero. I'd try hanging out in a different scene.

What different scene would you suggest BESIDES the neighborhood in which I live? What different scene would you suggest besides work, where I spend a lot of my time? My scene is my life, dull as it may be.

IOW, I don't go to bars. I don't go to nightclubs. I don't go to any place where slatterns are known to be. I simply go to places everyone has to go, i.e. grocery stores, gas stations, etc. I base what I said on my observations of reality. The reality is that 99.9999999% of women are skanks, and they aren't worth having. Yes, that goes for your little 'church girls' too. They're oftentimes BIGGER sluts than their secular sisters...

If I'm too harsh Anonymous I'll tone it down. However, there are some pretty harsh things said about women and if I don't disagree I'm seen to be supporting it.

MarkyMark,

I would try talking to some Church girls before you completely dismiss that scene. I'm sure that there are a lot of "Christian sl*ts” out there, however, even on campus and outside of churches I'd meet lots of girls who weren't shagaholics. There are normal people out there, it isn't all Paris Hilton and Kathey Bates from Misery.

If the issue though is jealousy, ie everyone is getting some but me, I would encourage you to build yourself up rather than try to bring women down on every front.

At my age (49), my sex drive is all but gone. Oh, the plumbing still works, but it takes a lot more, er, urging, than it used to. Anyway, jealousy has nothing to do with it. The fact of the matter is that there aren't nearly enough decent gals to go around. They're in such short supply that I'm compelled to question if they still exist.

Not an easy situation. I'm younger so I know that scene. If you were to marry at your age it would almost certainly be to a divorcee. However, women at that age are also maybe likely to have wised up a little.

If women your age (I'm presuming 20-24 here) have wised up, then WHY do half of them carry HPV, hmmm? Granted, that stat is only for sexually active women ages 20-24, but let's face it; ALL of the women (well, 99.99% of them anyway) in that demographic are sexually active. To put it another way, it's a flip of the coin as to whether or not a gal your age is carrying HPV-not good odds...

The reality is that 99.9999999% of women are skanks, and they aren't worth having. Yes, that goes for your little 'church girls' too. They're oftentimes BIGGER sluts than their secular sisters...

This is a standard leftist tactic. Accuse and project certain behaviours one possesses to the opponent while accusing them of being "hypocrites". Ever wonder why liberals always accuse conservatives of "hypocrisy"?

I'm 18 (nearing 19), Christian and still a virgin (zero sexual contact). Amazing to believe since you think we "church girls" are all skanks (never mind the number of liberal Christians or heretical Christians). Getting all pessimistic has drawbacks. I'm biracial so I really have to think about my future family and race plus I was in a depression and had suicidal tendencies for various reasons so I know it isn't easy. We need to hope for the best and follow God.

Are you going to accuse me of being a liar, a "Victorian influenced" white knighter, a feminist or anything like that?

The Bible allows the same thing, as we've discussed on here before. There's nothing inherently immoral about enslaving someone, and concubines have a long tradition in the West.

The point being that people don't do that anymore because we find it distasteful to own other people, and we satisfy that... erm... market with porn, prostitutes, and loose women. Plenty of those to go around, to say the least. So there's no need to steal anyone, or to practice rapine warfare.

It makes me sort of wonder. Wife-stealing is growing popular in the Far East because of the skewed sex-ratios, but I don't see the impetus for it in Kuwait. Is this for married or unmarried men? Is the barrier to marriage too high (she mentions contracts)? Or are the men just such polygamous lechers?

I think its fairly clearly designed to be an idea promoted to insult the west, hence the focus on "western prisoners of war". There aren't likely to be too many of those so its not a solution for any, um, "legitimate", demand. Her view is that there is something sinful in pornography or prostitution but not in sleeping with slaves, preferably western slaves. Time to crack out the knuckle dusters.

LOL. The chip is from being past my "steal by" date. :-) Turning 30 is gosh darn painful for a woman. I keep checking for gray hair and crows feet every morning. I'm safe, that's for sure!

The entire idea is surreal. As if men fight over women anymore. Modern woman's biggest problem is that nobody wants to have sex with her, and that she faces dying alone with her cats. The concept that men would go to war with another country in order to steal their women is laughable, at best.

Like something out of historical fiction, "...and then her tragic warriors were vanquished, and she was captured and dragged off by the victors by her hair." Good grief. Most young women would be happy if they could just get a decent date.

The views on sex slaves expressed by Salwa Al-Mutairi shows one of the hidden sides of the Middle East where unfortunate women are forced to have sex against their will. These are human rights violations and an outcry.

Any people with the sense of empathy, humanity and humility irrepective of any religion, country or race will be against this woman's lunatic and insane views of sex slaves.

Simple question for her: How would she feel if she was one of the POW's captured and taken as sex slave during the Iraq invasion of Kuwait in 1990?

I love her logic(sarcasm). It makes just as much sense as Islam. How is it not adultery or fornication if they're slaves and not other Kuwaiti women? Doesn't make any sense because it is STILL adultery and fornication because the definition of adultery is to have sex out of marriage and the saudi pigs have always been doing that and will continue to do that. Let them do this because eventually they'll die of aids or something.

guys am from Kuwait, and all kuwaiti community knows that she has mental illness after suffering from her family. They took her daughter away from her and her money and make her brother become a drug addicted, I feel sorry for her because she was totally fine and a successful women. don't forget that media try to make Arabs' people especially Muslims looks like an idiot.